Good point. At worst, wouldn’t it be carbon-neutral and have no net effect?
“At worst, wouldn’t it be carbon-neutral and have no net effect?”
The article is placing this planet saving agriculture at a time before the industrial revolution. So I would say the widespread use of fertilizers derived from fossil fuels had not yet occurred...and agriculture certainly didn’t cause any additional co2 in the atmosphere. I still think, as long as we continue with agriculture, there will always be a slight net loss of co2 in the air - because there’s always a field somewhere storing co2 in plant form.
But nothing I can see about pre-industrial agriculture would fit the AGW narrative, as far as warming the earth is concerned. And really, at the time of the industrial revolution, we only had 1.5 billion people on the planet...we have quadruple that today, and we probably grow a lot more per capita today...using their logic, the earth should be on fire by now.